From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:20:30 -0400 Archived: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:33:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis >From: Kentaro Mori<kentaro.mori.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:38:51 -0300 >Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:36:49 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis >>>From: Bruce Maccabee<brumac.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:27:08 -0400 (EDT) >>>Subject: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis >>>A new, unretouched version of the famous "wigwam" photo of beams >>>converging at an "object" above Los Angeles during an >>>antiaircraft operation has been published. >>>New interest in the photo, published Feb 26, 1942, is a result >>>of the publicity surrounding the movie Battle: Los Angeles, >>>which has nothing to do with the actual "battle". >>>Although the newly available version of the photo does not show >>>some features as distinctly as the previously known, retouched, >>>version, the analytical result is the same: seems difficult to >>>imagine that any known object or phenomenon could account for >>>the shape and opacity of the beam convergence region and also >>>not be wiped out by the intense AA fire. >>>http://www.brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html >>Thanks to Bruce for this analysis. >>He observes that one of the beams of light in the photo appeared >>to have been reflected by the object. I suggest an alternative >>possibility that it may have been refracted by tori visible just >>above the object in the enhanced photo. >>http://www.treurniet.ca/tori/ufoindex.htm >I suggest the beam could possibly be just another searchlight >located to the far right and behind the photographer. This would >make it appear as the light beam was going downwards. I can't picture what you are suggesting. A light source to the right would have to be at a higher elevation than the object no matter where it was positioned. >Or it could simply be that its source on the left was not >recorded in the poor quality image. Actually, for a night shot I think the image is pretty good. A beam from the source on the left should be more visible than the residual on the right. >A small scale reproduction of what the Battle of LA photo could >have looked like was actually made as an art project (see first >photo): >http://forgetomori.com/2010/ufos/ufo-photos/the-battle-of-paris/ >That photo was probably digitally retouched, but either way the >light reflections pose one question relevant to interpreting >that beam in the actual photo as a deflection: why only one of >the beams? Perhaps there was only one because it was closer to the toroidal field generated by the object than the other beams. That was my point not included in this reply. >Then again it's a cautionary sign that Bruce's previous >comments, which he updated, failed to mention even once what now >seem to be clear evidence of very crude retouching of the image. >Others had previously mentioned the possibility, and Tim >Printy's article on the photo also presented the other LIFE >magazine photo of the Battle of LA, as well as examples which >could account for why the light beams did not extend beyond the >convergence point: >http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_1.pdf >Finally, it must be noted that Scott Harrison mentions that he >is not sure if this new negative is an unretouched one. It >clearly has less signs of retouching - if any at all - than the >famous one, but then again, it is now clear how little actual >analysis has been done on whatever we have of physical evidence >of a UFO over LA at that night. Since it wasn't included in Mr. Mori's reply, the torus seen in the enhanced photo was likely not considered meaningful. I think it's real because I've seen others in many other photos. Seeing a torus beside a disc-shaped object in the enhanced LA photo is evidence for me that there was a real UFO there and that the gunners were not shooting at nothing. Images of searchlights aimed at a mirror ball, or unsupported suggestions that there may be an even less retouched photo do not help much. Scott Harrison's article in the Los Angeles Times says "the non-retouched negative... definitely showed the original scene before a print was retouched". William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp